Membership (Revisited)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by Scott Bushey

And regarding the baptisms of my kids, he doesn't think I have sinned in waiting to baptize them,

He is going against his confession; it says that not baptizing them is "a great sin".

The PCA pastor and I agree that it would be a "great sin" if I were *able* to have my girls baptized, but *refused* to do so. But that is *not* the position I am in!

As a matter of fact, the same day we studied that passage in the WCF in the men's morning Bible study, I asked him about my kids' baptisms. He said that unity with one's church is very important, and that it is commanded by God as well. So I was in the position of being willing to have my kids baptized, but prevented by doing it because of my credobaptist elders. Thus, the hinderance was not my fault. Since it would be wrong to break fellowship over baptismal differences, the PCA pastor said I was being providentially hindered from getting my daughters baptized. I agree with him 100%

And here is the wonderful thing: God has blessed my obedience to His command for unity, by providentially *removing* that hinderance to paedobaptism! I subjected myself to my credobaptist elders for 6 months, and now the door has been opened for anyone at MBC to have their children baptized! Praise the Lord for what He is doing at MBC!!!






[Edited on 9-30-2005 by biblelighthouse]
 
Joseph M. Gleason
* Husband of Amy --- Father of Katie, Kimberly and Andrea
* UNIX Administrator at Experian
* Member at McKinney Bible Church
* Student at Westminster Theological Seminary --- Dallas, TX
* Webmaster @ http://www.biblelighthouse.com

They do or don't? If they don't, I think you need to update that.
 
Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Why is it dangerous?

How is it unbiblical?

Still, no one has demonstrated any Scriptures mandating the keeping of "membership rolls" at a church.

Joseph, would you mind interacting with Matthew's post from the first page? I felt he gave a very clear summary of a biblical view on membership rolls.

It has already been stated how your view is dangerous and unbiblical and ahistorical, could you specifically address why you believe those who stated such are in error?
 
Originally posted by webmaster

The Scriptures make a distinction of those who belong to different churches, and who are associated in each location. They were publicly known to be visibly connected with a particular local body. . . . If someone were to point you out, what church would you be associated with as a covenanted member?

Now there's a fairly easy question to answer. I am a part of McKinney Bible church. Everyone at MBC would say so. My signature line here on the Puritanboard says so, too.

But that doesn't mean that MBC has my name written down somewhere on a membership card.

Originally posted by webmaster

It would be impossible to exclude anyone from coming into the church and voting since there would be no definable fellowship.

I suppose if we had "voting", then membership would become an issue.



Thank you for sharing these two articles, Matt. I plan to read both of them. Maybe I will change my mind on this issue as I have changed it on others.
 
Originally posted by webmaster
Joseph M. Gleason
* Husband of Amy --- Father of Katie, Kimberly and Andrea
* UNIX Administrator at Experian
* Member at McKinney Bible Church
* Student at Westminster Theological Seminary --- Dallas, TX
* Webmaster @ http://www.biblelighthouse.com

They do or don't? If they don't, I think you need to update that.

Obviously, I use the word "member" much more loosely than you do.

Everybody at MBC considers me a member of MBC, so I think my signature line can stay just the way it is.

But the fact remains that we have no membership class, no membership cards to fill out, and no membership roll that I am aware of.

It's not exactly that we don't consider ourselves to have membership . . . it's just that our definition of "member" is different.

Confess Christ, come to our church for a few weeks, and everyone at MBC will start calling you a "member of MBC" too.

I suppose you could say that we do have membership . . . we just don't raise the requirements for "joining" to an unbiblical level.
 
Now there's a fairly easy question to answer. I am a part of McKinney Bible church. Everyone at MBC would say so. My signature line here on the Puritanboard says so, too.

Being part of something does not mean you are covenanted with them (and taking into consideration you have switched recently to Paedobatpism raises a huge question on how you understand "covenant" and covenatning.). It really doesn't matter if someone said "Joseph is part of our church." What does that mean biblically? Nothing. And as I posted above, your signature line is wrong if your "church" does not have a membership. You are really not a member, unless you have simply been pulling our leg for sake of argument. (Again, you should change that lest you bear a false witness to what biblically covenanting is all about). It should read that you are "attending" the church (whatever that means as well - even baseball teams have a membership roll! I don't think the Redsox manager is going to say you are "part of the team" just because you visit the bullpen.) In other words, it doesn't matter what the Apsotle Paul says about being "joined" to the disciples. It matters as to whetehr the Elders have recieved him as a communicant member and have given him the right hand of fellowship. This also falls over into how the sacrametns are distributed, and how one partakes, and fences, the Lord's Supper. If the body of the Lord is not discernable, then it is not partaking of the sacrament viably.

That is why for the "well-being" of the church, government is so important because this is really handled at the level of PRESBYTERY. Not whether Mrs. Harriet says she "sees" you attending the church. thus, I think it would be important to study "covenant" again from a biblical perspective, not just the part about "paedobaptism." it is so much WAY more than that.

[Edited on 9-30-2005 by webmaster]
 
Originally posted by ChristopherPaul
Joseph, would you mind interacting with Matthew's post from the first page? I felt he gave a very clear summary of a biblical view on membership rolls.

I already did interact with his argument. But I'll repeat myself:

It is true that certain Biblical characters were identified with this church or that church. But the same goes for me! If you said something about "Joseph Gleason, that guy who is part of McKinney Bible Church", you would be speaking accurately. Ask any MBC person what "his church" is, and he will answer "MBC". So the way we *speak* of a person belonging to a church doesn't necessarily change based on whether there is a membership roll or not. --- Thus, any Biblical texts saying that so-and-so is part of such-and-such church is inconclusive. There is no Scripture (to my knowledge) that definitively reveals a church keeping membership rolls.

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul

It has already been stated how your view is dangerous and unbiblical and ahistorical, could you specifically address why you believe those who stated such are in error?

I already did this, as well.

Others have made false claims that the elders at MBC are just my "friends" and have "no authority" over me, but that is nonsense, especially based on Matthew 18.

They have said that church discipline can't be exercised if there are no membership rolls, but this assertion of theirs is also not true. I have already seen with my own eyes that it CAN be and IS exercised, with witnesses and documentation and all, according to Matthew 18.
 
Originally posted by webmaster
It matters as to whetehr the Elders have recieved him as a communicant member and have given him the right hand of fellowship. This also falls over into how the sacrametns are distributed, and how one partakes, and fences, the Lord's Supper.

1) The elders of MBC *have* welcomed me as a communicant.

2) The elders of MBC *have* given me the right hand of fellowship, and have even seriously pursued me, looking at the possibility that I may be an elder at MBC eventually.

If you just bar your discussion to what is actually revealed in Scripture regarding belonging to a church, then I belong to MBC every bit as much as any "member" of a church in Corinth, Ephesus, etc.

But once you start *requiring* that membership be entered into via some written document, you have gone *beyond* what the Scriptures teach. Is that necessarily wrong to have a printed membership roll? Maybe not. But no amount of man's tradition can make written/documented/recorded membership a *necessity*.

You still have not demonstrated anything in Scripture that requires written, documented membership rolls in any local church. If you choose to have official "membership", you can, but it is a tradition of men, not an edict from God.




[Edited on 9-30-2005 by biblelighthouse]
 
Matt . . . I'll tell you what . . . let's hold off for a day or so . . . give me a chance to go ahead and read your two articles on membership.

Just in case I'm sticking my foot in my mouth, I don't want to keep hammering on this issue until I read what you have already written in those two articles you sent to me. So I will try to keep my mouth shut on this particular thread, until I have gotten through your two articles.

Thank you for your patience in this matter.
 
Joseph,

It is not the physical keeping of a roll, but rather the conscious covenanting oath that matters. The roll is simply a record keeping of who has taken the oath. In that respect, the Bible gives a plethora of examples - every place where it records that a covenanting oath was taken.

I may be misunderstanding you, but you have stated time and again that MBS has no membership, not that it does not have a computer file with the list of the nabmes of members on it. The paper/file is not critical - although it is important, as evidence (especially in a situation of discipline; it might be critical to show jurisidiction). The membership is critical in and of itself.

If no members, no body. If no members, no oversight. Could you not see the difference between a young boy who was living in your house and whom you cared for, and an adopted son? You would have no ultimate authority over the first young man. Of course he might voluntarily agree to abide by your wishes, but once he decided not to and "moved out" (as might be far more likely to happen when actual discipline was needed) there would be nothing you could do. In the latter case, you would retain authority.

Don't get hung up on the piece of paper - that is not the critical point. It is MEMBERSHIP that matters.

[Edited on 9/30/2005 by fredtgreco]
 
Joseph,

In the Scriptures, are there any numerical counts of people recorded pertaining to Israel or the Church? If there are not, then we have different Bibles. If there are, then how would they know, or care? Why would the Holy Spirit take the time to specifically number people? Who wrote that down? Certainly Luke could not have been, for example, in every place or every meeting. What documents did he use to formulate his information in Acts, for example? Why was the Holy Spirit so intent on adding that information? What documents did that information get inscribed on? Why?

Remember, the burden of proof is really on you to discount everything said so far (which you really haven't, you've just stepped over it). You have to demonstrate Scripturally why 1) numbering is used and is important. 2) how communicant members are formally communicated by Scripture, 3) how the body is discerned if people can come and go without formal membership, 4) What covenatning actually meant to Jewish Disciples, 5) why you blur the visible/invisible distinction and what you will replace that with, 6) why historically everyone else believed in membership, 7) how Jure Divino works without membership (impossible), 8) how pastors can keep watch over "their flock" or thier particular meeting house without having any rhyme nor reason as to how they distinguish between Harry who walks in and says "he is part of the church" to Joe who has been in the church for 23 years, 8) who we are to exercise our spiritual gifts unto in a given body (how we would discern or not discern that), 9) how the priveldges of membership are communicated to "group of people" not discernably covenanted, 10) why the Bible identifies specific churches (local bodies) in varying geophrahical reagion instead of simply calling them generic beleivers, 11) Who we are accountable to and why, 12) How impossible elder oversight would be if there were not vows taken to those discernable members, 13) how people are actually excommunicated form "anywhere" they ahve never been vowed to, 14) How when someone says, "But I gladly submit myself under their authority," and where the Bible says that you are the one allowed to submit yourself at your own convenience?, 15) How exhortations to specific duties is possible if now defined membership is given (i.e. Paul and James would not have had the ability to exhort the body concerning orphans or widows if there were not some visible discerning list and discernable members of the body. James 1:27 and 1 Tim. 5), 16) How you would explain formal monetary duties of members - Monetary support of the church would be a nightmare; who is required to give, what should they give, when and to what church? 17) Formal missions would be a nightmare. Who sends who? Who are the pastors sent out accountable to? Why are they accountable to one body and not another except for monetary support? 18) yada, yada, yada.

OK - with patience.

[Edited on 9-30-2005 by webmaster]
 
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Joseph,

It is not the physical keeping of a roll, but rather the conscious covenanting oath that matters. The roll is simply a record keeping of who has taken the oath. In that respect, the Bible gives a plethora of examples - every place where it records that a covenanting oath was taken.

I may be misunderstanding you, but you have stated time and again that MBS has no membership, not that it does not have a computer file with the list of the nabmes of members on it. The paper/file is not critical - although it is important, as evidence (especially in a situation of discipline; it might be critical to show jurisidiction). The membership is critical in and of itself.

If no members, no body. If no members, no oversight. Could you not see the difference between a young boy who was living in your house and whom you cared for, and an adopted son? You would have no ultimate authority over the first young man. Of course he might voluntarily agree to abide by your wishes, but once he decided not to and "moved out" (as might be far more likely to happen when actual discipline was needed) there would be nothing you could do. In the latter case, you would retain authority.

Don't get hung up on the piece of paper - that is not the critical point. It is MEMBERSHIP that matters.


Then, according to what you have said above, perhaps you could say that MBC does have membership.

Paper or no piece of paper, all I can see is that I have seen Matthew 18 carried out quite effectively multiple times at MBC. So if the MBC elders really have no authority, then that is being kept a secret from everyone at MBC.

Everything I said in the two paragraphs above, I don't expect to change. But before I speak further, I would like to take the time to go read Matt's 2 articles. Perhaps I will be eating crow on this thread tomorrow. Or maybe not. We shall see. I just want to give his argument a fair chance.
 
Originally posted by webmaster

It would be impossible to exclude anyone from coming into the church and voting since there would be no definable fellowship.

Biblelighthouse:

I suppose if we had "voting", then membership would become an issue.

How did your pastor/elder become the pastor? If he wasn't chosen by the members (hence, voting), then is he self appointed? Or, if appointed by previous eldership, where did the original elders gain their appointment?

This is important: either the elders are self appointed, or the whole Puritan Board can show up (having been their only 1 week), nominate and vote.


[Edited on 9-30-2005 by Dan....]
 
Uhmmmm...... I might be doing a Captain Obvious here.....

Who is the 'YOU' (plural) in 1 Corinthians 5 that Paul charges to (when they are gathered together in the Spirit of our Lord Jesus) excommunicate the sinning brother in vv. 1-4 ?

Someone already pointed out....excommunication implies communication. But I'm looking at this very PRACTICAL example.

Who was Paul writing to ?:candle:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top